Thirty-eight leading doctors working in child protection today accuse the media of biased reporting which demonises paediatricians and threatens the interests of vulnerable children.

The doctors - 37 consultant paediatricians and one paediatric radiologist - say they cannot remain silent over "the current situation for children which has resulted from recent court cases and the media campaign against colleagues".

One signatory, Dr Chris Hobbs, consultant paediatrician and designated child protection doctor at St James University hospital in Leeds, said the system was failing children, and one reason was the "enormous pressure" on paediatricians. "Nobody wants to do the work. It's a serious crisis in the system. We're not going to have any child protection in this country unless we think it through a bit more."

The letter, published in the Guardian today, does not name Professor Sir Roy Meadow or Professor David Southall, two senior paediatricians facing allegations of serious professional misconduct before the General Medical Council.

Sir Roy first identified Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), a form of child abuse whereby mothers fake or induce illness in their children to draw attention to themselves.

He also gave evidence for the prosecution at the trials of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel, who were all charged with killing their babies. Mrs Clark and Mrs Cannings had their convictions quashed on appeal and Mrs Patel was cleared at trial.

Prof Southall's work has also involved diagnoses of MSBP. In their letter today, the consultants accuse the media of bias, of exploiting differences of opinion between doctors to claim that paediatricians are over-diagnosing abuse and neglect, and of confusing the public by wrongly claiming that MSBP is an invention.

"Pronouncements that Munchausen syndrome by proxy does not exist give scant consideration to Department of Health and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health reports," they say. "The media should have responsibility to vulnerable children who do not buy newspapers or have a vote."

The consultants say that the adversarial criminal courts "nourish disagreement between doctors" and that juries find it "more acceptable to hear medical or genetic explanations than deliberate harm by parents".

Their letter is in response to a Guardian article last week about a "rogue" expert witness, Colin Paterson, who was struck off by the GMC last month over his evidence in child abuse cases.

Dr Paterson, a chemical pathologist rather than a paediatrician, blamed multiple fractures in the first few months of life on temporary brittle bone disease, a condition which few experts believe exists. He told one court that 60-70 children had been returned to their parents following his evidence.

The doctors point out that 87 complaints have been made to the GMC about paediatricians practising in child protection but not one has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

By contrast, the striking off of Dr Paterson, whose evidence led to the return of children to parents accused of harming them, "has attracted little attention from press or television, they say.

The appeal court judgment in Mrs Cannings' case said parents should not be prosecuted for child killing in the future where medical experts were in dispute and there was no other cogent evidence.

The solicitor general, Harriet Harman, announced an immediate review of pending prosecutions and of the 258 cases in the last decade in which parents were convicted of child killing.

Professor Alan Craft, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: "Paediatricians are being demonised. They are feeling very beleaguered."